Keeping Romney’s ‘Promise to America’

Mitt Romney

Photo Credit: DonkeyHotey/Flickr

By Rebecca DiFede — In a recent speech in Michigan, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney stated that “deep confidence in a better tomorrow is the basic promise of America” and that he didn’t merely want to change policies but wished to “offer a dramatic change in perspective and philosophy.”

Hmm. Where have we heard that before?

Oh yes. That’s right, it’s the same thing every candidate says when facing an incumbent. That what the current administration has done was wrong, but never fear, Romney is here — to save the day.

So who is to be trusted with the future of America? Perhaps the answer lies with some of the key issues from the Obama administration that all of the candidates promise to focus on should they be elected.

First on that list might be our impossibly excessive spending. Our illustrious president has taken the phrase “spend like it’s going out of style” to a whole new level, draining our nation’s wealth as if it was a pair of purple-striped MC Hammer pants.

Romney, throughout the course of his campaign, has outlined his 59-point plan, in which he claims he will cap spending at 20 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and balance the budget. Santorum and Gingrich have promised similar things, claiming that if they are elected, only then will America be the booming, prosperous giant it once was.

Which would be wonderful, if the Republicans can ever get the 60 Senate votes required to pass that kind of reform. Why?

While it only takes 51 votes to pass a budget, to change so-called “mandatory” spending requires a change of law, which requires 60 votes to gain cloture in the Senate.

The truth of the matter is spending almost never goes down no matter who is in power. According to the Office of Management and Budget, spending has continued to climb throughout our history. So regardless if its Republicans or Democrats, Federalists or Anti-Federalists, no one actually reduces spending the way they say they will.

Now this is not just because they haven’t reduced the debt since 1957, but also because the two-thirds of our spending is filed under the category “mandatory” spending that increases automatically, and which the president has little to no control over.

That is yet another convenient tidbit that the candidates forget to mention. In fact, altering the criterion for the mandatory spending would occur only if a 60 vote majority was reached in the Senate. That’s problematic, because, since the advent of the filibuster, Republicans have never had a filibuster-proof majority in that body.

These programs are required under law and are subject to a specified criteria. They are “defined benefits” that are calculated based on the statutory formula, and presto, the Treasury must spend the money.  Therefore, the law itself must literally be changed to eliminate or reduce how much is spent — and that takes 60 votes in the Senate.

So even if the entire country came to a standstill and Congress refused to ever pass a budget again, spending would continue to increase because of the “mandatory” spending.

Scary, huh?

The only pieces of the budget that can be in any way controlled are filed under “discretionary” spending and, obviously, the tax code. In the past few years, discretionary spending has been a ratio of almost 1 to 1 to the national deficit.

If Romney were to do what he says if elected, he would have to both reduce discretionary spending, plus get a supermajority to cut mandatory spending.

Fat chance, Mitt. Don’t promise us change. We were already promised (and defaulted on) in that regard. Why not repeatedly advise the American people that they not only ought to elect you, but that you need 60 Senate votes to make the necessary changes to get our fiscal house in order?

Also, how about telling us something we can actually look forward to? After all, you do have the best hair out of all the candidates, so I guess you can promise better headshots?

Might make the State of the Union speeches a little less depressing with something to laugh at other than Obama’s love affair with his teleprompter, and the phony promises of hope and change that have only resulted in debt and bills.

Rebecca DiFede is a contributing editor to Americans for Limited Government.

  • motherluna

    romney is a white obama.

  • motherluna

    No it is the same thing obama said. romney is the white obama.

  • jwatersphd

    we had the deficit down to a surplus before bush came in . . . so much for your accuracy. it doesn’t take very long for even a casual reader to discover that you are completely unreliable. I can’t recall a blog of yours yet that didn’t have some gross distortion. 

  • Blazedrifter3

    Bill clinton had to shut down congress till he got a balenced budget. Ron Paul is the only one with the balls to do the same. Mitt Romney is just more of the same. And this artical is more of the same bs we see everyware else.

  • topeka

    No, Rombama is not “O” … he will ensure the bankers get all of the money they want until the wheels come off or the global economy meltsdown.

    The difference between “O” and Rombama is that these guys support “O” but they are in Rombama’s email contact list… (or close to it).

    ;-) 

  • topeka

    phd,

    your comments are always defective. (nothing personal)

    While Clinton had a surplus – created by Newt Gingrich as SOH – it was the result of horse trading – robbing Peter to pay Paul.

    The entitlement funding was not cut at all, excluding the shenanigans (bipartisan) of goofing around with the CPI and the formulas for calculating benefits.

    Overall spending was not cut either: Clinton enjoyed a double combo of the Reagan era momentum, and global economic expansion, and loose money.

    As for Bush derangement syndrome – none of Bush’s sins invalidate Rebecca’s points, and the facts support her article.

    ;-)

  • Mschultz39

    So why didn’t Obama cut mandatory spending when he and the congress had a democratic majority?
    Was it more important to pass Obama Care, and spend us into a better economy, as they believe?
    Their is a difference in true conservative philosophy, as opposed to a left wing progressives. The true conservative philosophy is based on a balancing the budget. Much like the banking institutions accomplished and operated before government mandates. All private businesses have to work on a balanced budgets or they simply can’t survive.
    If a truly conservative government can be elected like the Obama progressives were, their is no doubt mandatory spending will end, and a balanced budget will be achieved. This would also usher in an economic growth cycle that would unleash the American economy. For all the foibles Romney has he does recognize the economic potential as does Trump! That’s way Obama would like anybody but Romney running against him!   
           

      

  • Hold Politicians Accountable

    All of our politicians need to be held accountable including candidates. We can start by holding Congress responsible for not standing up for american citizens that they are suppose to serve.
    What we need is http://www.petition2congress.com/6195/congressional-reform-act-to-fix-congress/

  • Hold Politicians Accountable

    We the People Demand a Full Scale Investigation into the Eligibility Requirements of President Obama to be President and to run again for a second term.

  • Hold Politicians Accountable
  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZRVIGZUHDKGNIUHBKCHKPTLQUU Hankr

    Under Obama, bankers have benefited more than under ANY other president in history.  A substantial number of his “czars”, including tax-cheat Timothy Geithner, have come from Goldman-Sachs, and most major banks have received huge sums from the TARP and Obama’s stimulus plans with Bank of America receiving the largest amounts.

    I’m no big fan of Romney, but I object to your statement that “he will ensure the bankers get all of the money they want…”  No one has ever done that better than Obama.  You should make that clear in any statement in which you try to trash any of the Republican candidates.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZRVIGZUHDKGNIUHBKCHKPTLQUU Hankr

     No, you are wrong– this article makes the excellent point that, regardless who is elected president, we can expect our national debt situation to accelerate toward a crisis situation unless a filibuster-proof Republican majority is elected to the Senate and control of the House is also maintained.  Without that, any substantial change to the growth in spending simply will not occur.  Even “putting the Republicans in charge” by electing a simple majority in the Senate while holding the House will have very little effect because the Democrats will then become the spoilers and filibuster any attempt to make major changes to programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security which represent most of the spending.  As long as the Democrat National Committee controls the majority of funding for reelection campaigns, Democrat senators and representatives will vote as they’re told in order to obtain the funds for getting reelected– and that means for the big government agenda of the DNC.  The only good result from a simple Republican majority in the Senate is that Rat-face Harry Reid would no longer control what actually comes to the floor for a vote.

  • Greg137

    Sorry to burst your bubble, Mschulz39, but Romney created Romneycare, which was used to draft Obamacare, even Romney admitted that the only difference between obamacare and romneycare was two zeros…  The individual mandate was Romney’s creation!  Okay, people Time to wake up, and take the economy away from the cliff now…..  Okay??  Romney is also a dirty politician who will sell himself out on vital issues.. Romney has also said he would not use language to excite the conservative base… Please look up candidates before you endorse them…  REomney is also known as a first class ass kisser… He will praise Obama to avoid being portrayed as a racist, and he said he believes in man-made global warming….  Both Romney and Trump are among the most loyal Obama supporters..

  • WhiteFalcon

    Rebecca DiFede is correct. I have been mentioning frequently that we must not forget the Congressional races. If we can win most of the Senate races and retain or expand our majority in the House so that we control both the House and the Senate along with the Presidency, we can make some very noteworthy changes. Then even if Dumbama is re-elected we can stop him in his tracks because we would control both houses of Congress, even though we wouldn’t be able to do a lot of what we want to do. The fact is we need to get rid of all the Commiecrats in the Congress in November. We all should know by now who to not vote for.

Back to top

Copyright © 2008-2014 NetRight Daily